It feels like journalistic malpractice for this article to assign some kind of personhood to "AI George Carlin" and talk about this entity "dropping" a comedy special or "throwing shade". This is the production of another person, without Carlin's consent or his family's, using his voice and attempting to imitate him. It reminds me of an older article that claimed an "AI" was tricking people into solving captchas. What was actually happening was that a researcher was tricking people into solving captchas using an AI. When journalists credulously give agency to AIs they are papering over the harms being caused by actual people who have the decision whether to do something morally suspect or not.
Carlin would himself shoot the perpetrators in the head. This is a very shallow and weak representation of Carlin's work.
Too bad it's imitating Carlin on its later days of only ranting...
Wasn’t there just an article about not allowing people to make AI versions of dead children, out of respect for their parents?